Wilder
Research
Signs of Safety in Minnesota
Early indicators of successful implementation in Child Protection Agencies
Signs of Safety is a strengths-based, safety-focused
Child Protection intervention strategy developed
by Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards in Western
Australia during the 1990s. The Signs of Safety
approach was designed to give child protection
practitioners a framework for engaging all persons
involved in a child protection case; including
professionals, family members and children. The
primary goal for Signs of Safety work is the safety
of children.
Signs of Safety in Minnesota
Signs of Safety is one of several family engagement
strategies being implemented in Minnesota. The first
child protection agencies in Minnesota to implement
Signs of Safety were Olmsted County and Carver
County, in 1999 and 2004 respectively. In 2009, the
Minnesota Department of Human Services developed
a Signs of Safety training series in response to the
widespread grass roots interest expressed around the
state. Counties selected to participate in the initiative
were Anoka, Blue Earth, Brown, Faribault, Martin,
Hubbard, Isanti, Kandiyohi, Lincoln, Lyon, Murray,
Nobles, Pipestone, Polk, Scott, St. Louis, Wright, and
Yellow Medicine. One tribal organization, Mille Lacs
Band Family Services, was also selected to participate.
Monthly trainings were offered via Virtual Presence
Conferencing (VPC) and hosted by the Department
of Human Services in St. Paul. Training sessions
were facilitated by staff from Carver County Social
Services and Connected Families, a contracted
training organization located in Carver County.
Methods
In Fall 2010, Casey Family Programs contracted with
Wilder Research in St. Paul to conduct a research
study of the Signs of Safety training initiative offered
in Minnesota. The primary goals of this research
study were:
1. To assess levels of Signs of Safety implementation
among child welfare organizations participating in
the training initiative.
2. To determine benchmarks of implementation for
Signs of Safety work in child welfare organizations.
Wilder Research staff conducted five semi-structured
interviews with key project stakeholders and 14 semistructured interviews with child protection program
managers and supervisors from counties participating
in the training initiative. Wilder also completed three
discussion groups with social workers who had
participated in the trainings. Finally, researchers
attended the October session of the VPC Signs of
Safety training, and conducted a review of available
documents and materials on the Signs of Safety approach.
Interview findings
While most training initiative participants had been
acquainted with Signs of Safety prior to the grant,
levels of implementation varied widely across counties.
Nearly all counties expressed a desire for more
opportunities to gather and learn from one another,
and for increased assistance with on-site consultation.
Nearly all supervisors discussed a need for increased
training related to a key Signs of Safety strategy,
Appreciative Inquiry. Many also asked for help in
educating and engaging community partners.
There were many differences among child protection
supervisors with regard to how they were implementing
Signs of Safety in their agency. Some reported that
they had mandated their child protection staff to
participate in the training initiative, while others had
made it a voluntary opportunity. For some counties,
Signs of Safety was initiated from the “bottom up,”
with workers learning about the model from colleagues
in other counties, and bringing that information back
to their supervisors. In other counties, supervisors
became interested in Signs of Safety as a new direction
of Child Protection in Minnesota, and encouraged or
required their staff to participate in training.
Differences also emerged in how Signs of Safety was
being interpreted and incorporated. For some, the
prospect of this practice change was exciting and
fostered a renewed sense of purpose among staff. For
a few other staff, the early stages of implementation
have been associated with strained relationships with
partners, increased fragmentation of casework, and
deep divisions among staff in their support for or
resistance to the approach. These and other findings
are discussed in greater detail in the full report.
Benchmarks
Researchers created a list of eight benchmarks that
indicate early levels of success in the implementation
of the Signs of Safety approach. Benchmarks are not
in sequence, as it is not evident from the researchers’
review that they must be achieved in a certain order.
In the full report, benchmarks are followed by a list
of indicators and challenges to achieving each.
Longer term benchmarks, such as increases in family
satisfaction, worker retention, and reductions in child
protection placements and court involvement, should be
considered when Signs of Safety has been implemented
in a jurisdiction for three to five years. However,
because most of the counties participating in the
Minnesota training initiative had less than two
years of experience or exposure to Signs of Safety,
researchers focused on early benchmarks of success.
The benchmarks for implementation are:
 Evolution of child protection philosophy from
“professional as expert” to “professional as partner”
 Worker confidence in Signs of Safety
 Worker buy-in
 Supervisor buy-in
 Administrative leadership buy-in
 Practice sharing
 Parallel process in supervision
 Involving and educating other partners
Issues to consider
The following themes emerged during interviews
with program supervisors. Signs of Safety program
leaders and developers may be interested in examining
these issues further as they relate to the spread of the
Signs of Safety approach in Minnesota.
 Of the counties who participated in the training
initiative, researchers observed that those who were
earliest along in Signs of Safety implementation
were more likely to rate themselves as further
along in their understanding and integration of


the model than those counties who had more
experience and exposure to Signs of Safety. This
may be attributed to the fact that while the Signs
of Safety tools are relatively simple and straightforward, it is using them in practice that results in
the real learning and understanding of the model.
Individuals who have been practicing Signs of
Safety for a longer period of time are more likely
to recognize the complexity of the approach and
the challenges of fully integrating it into all aspects
of their practice. These practitioners and supervisors
are more likely to report that they have a long
way to go before Signs of Safety is fully realized
in their county.
For counties who were not far along on their
implementation journey, several supervisors noted
that one of the barriers to implementation was
related to their uncertainty about whether and to
what degree the Minnesota Department of Human
Services would continue to support Signs of Safety
in the future. Although some counties were
comfortable moving forward in implementing Signs
of Safety despite their uncertainty about DHS’s
level of commitment, others felt they needed a full
and long-term endorsement from the state before
they could fully engage in the program. At the
time interviews were conducted, several
respondents did not perceive the state as having
made this commitment.
Several respondents remarked about the
challenges of integrating Signs of Safety approaches
into existing child protection protocols and practices
in Minnesota. This was especially true for counties
who were still in early stages of implementation,
and were looking for concrete ways of integrating
the model into their current processes. While it is
clear that, philosophically, the Signs of Safety
approach fits well within the Minnesota Practice
Model, which emphasizes safety through
constructive and respectful engagement of families
and communities; it may be more challenging to
determine how to integrate Signs of Safety practices
more deeply into existing practices. One example
is related to the Structured Decision Making
(SDM) System, developed by the National Council
on Crime and Delinquency and the Children’s
Research Center, in use in all Minnesota counties.
The SDM system includes several tools to assess
risk, safety, and wellbeing of children and

families. A number of states such as California
and Massachusetts are currently working on ways
to train workers and collect evaluation data
regarding a more integrated application of Signs of
Safety and SDM. Going forward, it will be
important to continue to examine this issue and
make sure information and lessons learned are
shared with child protection practitioners and
supervisors.
There is a great deal of interest in more customized
training – particularly case consultation and realtime coaching with trainers from Connected
Families. Child Protection organizations that had
worked with Connected Families one-on-one
were very pleased with the result and were hoping
for more opportunities like this. However,
program leaders and developers may want to
consider the capacity of organizations like
Connected Families to provide the kind of direct
one-to-one consultation that is needed to spread
and continually reinforce the Signs of Safety
approach. Some counties suggested the idea of
training local practitioners who demonstrate a
desired level of skill and interest to serve as case
consultants for other workers. This “local practice
coach” approach is being used in other states
like California, and may help broaden the spread
of Signs of Safety by improving and increasing
access to regular case consultation.
Next steps
Casey Family Programs has agreed to continue
collaborating with Minnesota child welfare and
other leaders to train child protection managers and
practitioners in the Signs of Safety model through
2011. Based on lessons learned from the training
initiative of 2010, the Minnesota Department of
Human Services has redesigned their training approach
to use in-person, regional meetings held at eight
different sites each quarter, followed by quarterly
Wilder
Research
Information. Insight. Impact.
451 Lexington Parkway North
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104
651-280-2700
www.wilderresearch.org
statewide Virtual Presence Conferencing (VPC)
trainings held two months later. The goal is that
counties hosting the regional meetings will take on a
leadership role in planning and facilitating the training
days. DHS and the Signs of Safety training staff
from Carver County Community Social Services and
Connected Families hope that this model will be a
more effective approach for learning and practicing
the Signs of Safety tools and techniques. The natural
setting of in person regional meetings will hopefully
address practitioners’ and supervisors’ discomfort
with speaking and sharing information via the VPC
system. The statewide follow-up VPC meetings will
allow continued learning and practice sharing across
regions, which was of interest to the participating
initiative counties.
As trainers plan for next year, they may wish to consider
the following recommendations from child protection
supervisors and social workers interviewed for this study:
 Several supervisors expressed interest in receiving
additional training related to Appreciative Inquiry, as
well as more opportunities to interact with program
developer, Andrew Turnell. Several participants
attributed their own enthusiasm and passion for
Signs of Safety to encounters with Turnell.
 Counties would like to learn more about how to
engage and educate other professionals in the
child protection services continuum, including law
enforcement, county attorneys, judges, Guardians
ad Litem, etc. They also requested resources and
materials to support this work.
 Remote counties are concerned about accessibility
for regional trainings or other kinds of gatherings,
and hope that training budgets will be allocated to
the more distant counties to cover additional staff
time and travel costs.
For more information
This summary presents highlights of the full report Signs of Safety in
Minnesota. For more information about this report, contact Maggie
Skrypek at Wilder Research, 651-280-2694
Authors: Maggie Skrypek, Christa Otteson, and Greg Owen
In collaboration with Casey Family Programs and the Minnesota
Department of Human Services
December 2010